Mere Christianity

In continuing to build his argument, Lewis observes that science and religion are concerned with two fundamentally different kinds of knowledge; science observes and describes how things happen (e.g. cause-and-effect relationships), whereas religion wonders what things mean and why things aren’t otherwise (e.g. why suffering exists). This is a fairly commonplace distinction, and in fact, Lewis himself clarifies that both the religious and the materialist approaches have always coexisted within human culture precisely because there are questions that no amount of scientific discovery can ever resolve: “Supposing science ever became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, ‘Why is there a universe?’ ‘Why does it go on as it does’ ‘Has it any meaning?’ would remain just as they were?” (23).

From here, however, Lewis’s argument takes a more novel turn. One of the criticisms frequently levelled at religious belief in general is that it is a psychological defense mechanism that is, a way to avoid thinking about things like the meaningless of our existence and the inevitability of our mortality. In fact, Lewis himself concedes this point in his discussion of creative evolution:

When you are feeling fit and the sun is shining and you do not want to believe that the whole universe is a mere mechanical dance of atoms, it is nice to be able to think of this great mysterious Force rolling on through the centuries and carrying you on its crest (26-27).

However, Lewis contends that the alternative that is, the broadly “religious” view is at the very least equally unsettling, since it assumes that whenever we fail to heed our conscience, we’re disobeying whatever powerful entity gave us that conscience in the first place:

If the universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all our efforts are in the long run hopeless. But if it is, then we are making ourselves enemies to that goodness every day, and are not in the least likely to do any better tomorrow, and so our case is hopeless again (31).

Incidentally, this is what Lewis sees as appealing about the idea of a life-force it allows us to believe in a kind of purpose and meaning without demanding anything of us but he also argues that this idea doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, collapsing into either materialism on the one side or religion on the other.     

Ultimately, of course, Lewis will suggest that Christianity is best equipped both to explain this “terrible fix” (31) and to offer a way out of it. Even then, however, he will stress that Christianity is not an easy option, as it involves absolute commitment and overcoming a variety of hurdles. In other words, whether arguing in favor of religious belief in general or Christianity in particular, Lewis uses a very effective rhetorical strategy of adopting a clear-eyed and stoic tone common to materialist arguments. In doing so, he both strips those arguments of some of their power and suggests that it is his own position that is the truly courageous one: “All I am doing is to ask people to face the facts—to understand the questions which Christianity claims to answer. And they are very terrifying facts. I wish it was possible to say something more agreeable. But I must say what I think true” (32).